Supreme Court clarifies the process for designating Senior Advocates: Jitender @ Kalla vs. State (2025)

Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 667

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Is the current system for designating Senior Advocates in India fair and effective? The Supreme Court of India addressed concerns about the existing process in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). The court examined the guidelines established in previous cases, particularly Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, to ensure that the designation process is objective, transparent, and inclusive.

The Supreme Court was prompted to review the designation process after concerns were raised regarding misrepresentations made by a Senior Advocate in a separate case. This led to a broader examination of whether the existing rules ensure that only deserving advocates are designated as Senior Advocates.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and S.V.N. Bhatti, delivered the judgment. The court considered submissions from various parties, including the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, High Courts, and advocates, to address the identified issues and improve the designation process.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case originated from a criminal appeal where the appellant, Jitender @ Kalla, challenged a High Court order regarding the premature release of another convict. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had made material misrepresentations by not disclosing his own fixed term of imprisonment. This led the court to question the conduct of the concerned Senior Advocate, who had also made misrepresentations in other similar cases.

The Supreme Court’s concerns extended to the broader process of designating Senior Advocates, particularly the guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (Indira Jaising – I) and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (Indira Jaising – II). The court questioned whether these guidelines effectively ensured that only deserving advocates were being designated.

The Supreme Court had previously established guidelines for designating Senior Advocates in Indira Jaising – I to bring uniformity and objectivity to the process. These guidelines included the establishment of a Permanent Committee and a point-based assessment system. Subsequent modifications were made in Indira Jaising – II to address concerns about the implementation of these guidelines.

Timeline

Date	Event
1961	The Advocates Act was enacted, creating two classes of advocates: Senior Advocates and other advocates.
January 31, 1974	Amendment to Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, replacing “experience and standing at the Bar” with “ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law.”
October 12, 2017	The Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (Indira Jaising – I), laying down guidelines for designating Senior Advocates.
N/A	Indira Jaising – II was decided, modifying some of the guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising – I.
March 19, 2024	The Supreme Court issued notice and exempted the Appellant (Jitender @ Kalla) from surrendering.
September 2, 2024	The Supreme Court noted material misrepresentations made by the Appellant.
September 9, 2024	The Advocate-on-Record filed an affidavit explaining his conduct.
September 30, 2024	The Supreme Court issued notice to the Senior Advocate to explain statements in the Advocate-on-Record’s affidavit.
October 1, 2024	Misrepresentations by the Senior Advocate were recorded in a common order in several writ petitions and SLPs.
October 21, 2024	The Supreme Court permitted the Senior Advocate to withdraw and file a better affidavit.
November 29, 2024	Misrepresentations made by the concerned Senior Advocate were also recorded by this Court in order dated 29th November 2024 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.418 of 2024
November 30, 2024	The Senior Advocate filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology.
December 23, 2021	The Registrar dismissed IAs seeking modification of the guidelines laid down in the cases of Indira Jaising I and II.
February 20, 2025	The Supreme Court, in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), expressed concerns regarding the Senior Advocate designation process and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India.
February 25, 2025	The Supreme Court issued notice to various parties to consider the issues flagged in Jitender @ Kalla.
May 13, 2025	The Supreme Court delivered the judgment clarifying the Senior Advocate designation process.

Course of Proceedings

In Jitender @ Kalla, the Appellant had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against an order of the High Court wherein the High Court directed reconsideration of an application for premature release of another convict. Though the Appellant was not a party to the petition in which the impugned order was passed, strangely, he challenged the said order. Further, while filing the SLP, the Appellant did not disclose that he was directed to undergo imprisonment for thirty years without remission. The refore, this Court proceeded on the footing that it was a case of a simple life sentence.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for designating Senior Advocates is primarily governed by Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. This section establishes two classes of advocates: Senior Advocates and other advocates. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 states:

“An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as Senior Advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law he is deserving of such distinction.”

The Supreme Court also exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to bring about uniformity in the designation process. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Arguments

A. Submissions by the Learned Attorney General for India

The earlier convention of approaching Advocates for consent before designation is no longer feasible due to the increasing number of Advocates.
Inviting applications has opened doors for an aspirational class of lawyers to apply for designation.
The current system has flaws, and he is personally uncomfortable with the idea of an interview/interaction.
Section 16 of the Advocates Act is merely a signpost, and the Court must use its powers under Article 142 to fill gaps and improve the system.
It was not possible for him to peruse the entire material submitted by applicants, such as books, articles, reported judgments, etc.
The assignment of marks by the Permanent Committee was in the nature of recommendations, and the Full Court’s scope of evaluation is regarding issues of ethics and integrity.

B. Submissions by the Learned Solicitor General of India

The assessment conducted by a permanent committee should be discontinued.
Section 16 of the Advocates Act does not envisage splitting the Full Court into smaller bodies.
The involvement of members of the bar is not only unjustified but also contrary to the intent of the provision.
Voting by secret ballot should be reinstated as a mandatory practice.
The marks system fails to account for an Advocate’s standing at the Bar, which can only be assessed through their performance in court and integrity.
The interview process is an inadequate measure for assessing the suitability and personality of a candidate.
Only the Court before which an Advocate regularly practices should have the authority to confer designation.
The objective behind the system of designation, namely, the prevention of canvassing/lobbying, has not been fulfilled.

C. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Delhi

Designation must be by conferment and not by application.
There should be representations from the Bar.
A proposal for designation can be initiated by the Chief Justice, two sitting judges, or any two Senior Advocates.
Such proposals should be placed before the Full Court, which would vote on them through the method of secret ballots.
Such proposals should be considered twice a year, or at the very least once a year.

D. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Karnataka

Interviews should be discontinued, but there should be a provision for interaction if the committee is not acquainted with a particular applicant.
The criteria of integrity should be included by reducing marks for other criteria.
The number of designations must be decided based on the number of practicing Advocates.
Active practice should be an essential requirement for designation.
The object of designation is to mentor junior members of the Bar, to assist the Court in cases in an unbiased manner, and to project to the Bar that honesty, integrity, erudition and learning matters.
The designation is not an honour to be conferred on an Advocate based on several years of practice. Instead, he has to be a role model to the younger members of the Bar.
An active practitioner would not have time to publish articles, and the present criteria of awarding marks for it should be done away with.

E. Response on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

More transparency in the selection process by publishing the evaluation criteria, applications, and reasons for selection or rejection in the public domain.
Regular and timely designation must take place by conducting the process at fixed intervals.
There must also be involvement of the Bar Council and independent legal experts in the Selection Committee.
Peer review from fellow Advocates and views from all judges may be collected.
Reduce subjectivity and bias in evaluations by reducing reliance on interviews and having a structured scoring system.
Promote diversity and equal opportunities for women, first-generation lawyers, lawyers from diverse regions, including District Courts, and representation in different fields of law.
Secret ballot must be restricted.
Consideration of specialization-based designations, recognizing pro bono work and legal scholarship, introducing review mechanism for rejected candidates, and standardized rules for all High Courts.

F. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

The requirement of an interview for Advocates seeking designation as Senior Advocates is unnecessary.
Evaluation should be based on courtroom performance rather than an interview process.
No rigid criteria for awarding marks should be prescribed for designation.
Designation should be extended to those members of the Bar who exclusively practice before the Trial Courts as well.

G. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-in-Person in WP (C) 454/2015

Preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the reference without an application being made for review.
The designation process must be objective, fair, and transparent, and no power should remain unguided.
Clear guidelines are required to prevent arbitrary decision-making.
There is no provision for awarding lower marks for lack of integrity.
Supported retaining the interview system, but the weightage of marks given to an interview can be reduced, and marking on integrity be explicitly included.
Suggested renaming the process from ‘interview’ to ‘interaction’.
Contributions made to public life/service, whether the candidate has an academic bent of mind, etc., should also be considered.
Examination of audited bank accounts, pro bono work, library resources, the number of juniors mentored, and the ability to critique judicial decisions should be considered as criteria.
Originality of arguments reflected in court judgments must be considered.
Supplying written submissions and the practice of recording the name of the Advocate making submissions in the judgment must be made mandatory.
The quality of advocacy, rather than case outcomes, should be the decisive factor in designation.
Advocated for retaining publications as a factor in assessment.
Declared cutoff marks should be declared after results, or even before the interview to determine where one stands.
Whether secret ballot should be resorted to or not should be left to the Full Court to decide.
The current system is not perfect, and there is room for improvement, such as prohibiting canvassing by Advocates, prohibiting written recommendations being made by a judge or multiple judges for a particular candidate, publishing the application made and marks secured by an applicant, disclosure of probity and information relating to criminal/disciplinary proceedings through affidavits, deducting interview marks for questionable integrity, and taking help of external parties to evaluate judgments and academic work.

H. Submissions on behalf of the National Lawyers Campaign

Section 16 of the Advocates Act vests discretionary power in the High Courts and the Supreme Court to confer designations.
The practice of inviting applications from lawyers is unsustainable.
Many lawyers may consider it beneath their dignity to apply for designation and undergo an interview process.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to frame guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates on the basis of applications.
The creation of a Permanent Committee leads to excessive canvassing and results in the designation of only the kith and kin of its members.

I. Submissions of Applicants in IA 45959 of 2022 in 145730-31 of 2021 in MA 1502 Of 2020 in WP (C) 454 of 2015

Designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act is an honour and privilege conferred by the Full Court on Advocates of standing and experience.
Section 16 mandates obtaining the Advocate’s consent for designation, reinforcing that it is a recognition of merit.
The procedure in Indira Jaising -1 improperly confers an inherent right to be considered for designation without any mechanism to address grievances.
The entire system of applications is contrary to the statutory scheme.

J. Submissions of Respondent no. 2 (complainant) in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT Delhi (Crl.) Appeal No. 865 of 2025

Supported the application system introduced in Indira Jaising -1.
The application procedure, including an interview, does not demean Advocates seeking a distinction.
The application system promotes transparency, benefitting litigants and the public at large.

K. Submission of Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association

The marks system, including the existing criteria introduced in Indira Jaising -1 and 2, should be retained.
The marks may be adjusted to address concerns that have emerged from the experience of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

L. Submissions of the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association (unregistered)

The designation system should be all-inclusive, ensuring consideration for Advocates from rural backgrounds, backward classes, and marginalized communities.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Whether the Court should permit applications to be made for grant of designation, though the statute does not contemplate that.
Whether by making an advocate appear for an interview, are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate? Are we not converting the process of designation into a selection process?
It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested.
How the cases of advocates against whom complaints are pending for professional misconduct can be considered by the Permanent Committee.
Whether 10 or 20 points should be mechanically assigned only based on experience or the number of years of practice.
Whether three senior judges, including the Chief Justice and two senior advocates, should spend hours together for one candidate.
When the points-based assessment is not free from defects, the question is whether it can form the basis of assessment of an advocate.
Whether the Judges should openly discuss the merits and demerits of those who appear before them on the judicial side.
Whether the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates practicing in our Trial Courts to get designated.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	How the Court Dealt with It	Brief Reasons
Whether the Court should permit applications to be made for grant of designation	The practice of making a formal application can be continued.	An Act of making application will amount to consent of the Advocate for being considered for designation.
Whether by making an advocate appear for an interview, are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate?	The question is whether it is fair to assess personality and suitability only on the basis of a brief interview for a few minutes	Interaction or interview for a few minutes by any standard is not sufficient to assess the personality and suitability of the concerned Advocate .
It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested.	The points out of 25 have to be assigned by assessing personality and suitability only on the basis of the applicant’s performance in the interview.	Hence, if someone is impressive in an interview, he or she can get very good marks even if his or her general reputation is not up to the mark.
How the cases of advocates against whom complaints are pending for professional misconduct can be considered by the Permanent Committee.	No specific points have been assigned for the character, honesty and integrity.	The point -based assessment , as can be seen from the earlier discussion , can hardly be objective , and it tends to be highly subjective.
Whether 10 or 20 points should be mechanically assigned only based on experience or the number of years of practice.	Assigning points on the basis of experience in terms of the number of years is something which will require reconsideration as it does not serve the object sought to be achieved by this Court.	Moreover, the length of practice cannot be a rational criterion. On the contrary, it will help those who do not deserve designation as they will get points on the basis of the number of years in practice.
Whether three senior judges, including the Chief Justice and two senior advocates, should spend hours together for one candidate.	Three senior -most Judges of this Court or High Courts have onerous duties to discharge not only on the judicial side, but, on the administrative side as well.	They have to devote hours together to administrative work. If they are required to assign points out of 50 on the basis of Judgments and written submissions, we wonder how many working hours will be required to go through the documents submitted by individual Advocates .
When the points-based assessment is not free from defects, the question is whether it can form the basis of assessment of an advocate.	The experience of the last seven and a half years shows that it may not be rationally or objectively possible to assess calibre, standing at the Bar, and the experience in law of the Advocates who apply for designation on the basis of a point -based format .	That has not achieved the desired objective . There is another important aspect which is relevant. No specific points have been assigned for the character, honesty and integrity.
Whether the Judges should openly discuss the merits and demerits of those who appear before them on the judicial side.	In Full Court meetings, there is always an endeavour made to bring about consensus in decision -making on all subjects.	But, where consensus cannot be arrived at notwithstanding best efforts, the decision -making must be in a democratic manner by majority vote.
Whether the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates practicing in our Trial Courts to get designated.	When we talk of diversity, we must ensure that the High Courts evolve a mechanism by which the members of the Bar practicing in our Trial and District Judiciary and before specialised Tribunals are considered for designation as their role is no inferior to the role played by Advocates practicing before this Court and High Courts .	This is also an essential part of diversity. The High Courts can always call for the views of the Principal District Judges or the Heads of the Tribunals on such applicants .

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

E.S. Reddy v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC 258 – The Court observed that designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act is an honour and privilege conferred by the Full Court on Advocates of standing and experience.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising – I) – This case laid down the initial guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising – II) – This case reconsidered and modified the guidelines established in Indira Jaising – I.
Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Ors (2022) 7 SCC 439 – A contention was raised by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India for reconsideration of this authority.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 – This section provides for the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India – This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – The power of this Court can be traced to Article 145(1)(a).
Article 227(2)(b) of the Constitution of India – The High Courts can exercise power under Article 227(2)(b).
Sub -section (1) of Section 34 of the Advocates Act – The rule making power in this behalf can also be traced to Sub -section (1) of Section 34 of the Advocates Act

Authorities Table

Authority	Court	How Considered
E.S. Reddy v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC 258	Supreme Court of India	Relied upon to emphasize that designation is an honor conferred by the Full Court.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766	Supreme Court of India	Examined and partially overruled regarding the point-based assessment system.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Examined and partially overruled regarding the point-based assessment system.
Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961	N/A	Interpreted and applied to clarify the qualifications and process for designation.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India	N/A	Invoked to justify the Court’s power to issue guidelines for the designation process.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Party	Submission	How Treated by the Court
Attorney General for India	The current system has flaws, and he is personally uncomfortable with the idea of an interview/interaction.	Acknowledged the discomfort with interviews and the need for improvement.
Solicitor General of India	The assessment conducted by a permanent committee should be discontinued.	Agreed that the point-based assessment system should be discontinued.
High Court of Delhi	Designation must be by conferment and not by application.	The practice of making a formal application can be continued.
High Court of Karnataka	Interviews should be discontinued.	The question is whether it is fair to assess personality and suitability only on the basis of a brief interview for a few minutes
High Court of Madhya Pradesh	More transparency in the selection process by publishing the evaluation criteria, applications, and reasons for selection or rejection in the public domain.	Addressed by directing that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising -1 as amended by Indira Jaising -2 shall not be implemented.
High Court of Punjab and Haryana	The requirement of an interview for Advocates seeking designation as Senior Advocates is unnecessary.	The question is whether it is fair to assess personality and suitability only on the basis of a brief interview for a few minutes
Indira Jaising	The designation process must be objective, fair, and transparent, and no power should remain unguided.	Agreed that the designation cannot be the monopoly of the selected few.
National Lawyers Campaign	The practice of inviting applications from lawyers is unsustainable.	The practice of making a formal application can be continued.
Applicants in IA 45959 of 2022 in 145730-31 of 2021 in MA 1502 Of 2020 in WP (C) 454 of 2015	Designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act is an honour and privilege conferred by the Full Court on Advocates of standing and experience.	Agreed that the designation cannot be the monopoly of the selected few.
Respondent no. 2 (complainant) in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT Delhi (Crl.) Appeal No. 865 of 2025	Supported the application system introduced in Indira Jaising -1.	The practice of making a formal application can be continued.
Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association	The marks system, including the existing criteria introduced in Indira Jaising -1 and 2, should be retained.	The directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising -1 as amended by Indira Jaising -2 shall not be implemented.
Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association (unregistered)	The designation system should be all-inclusive, ensuring consideration for Advocates from rural backgrounds, backward classes, and marginalized communities.	Addressed by directing that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising -1 as amended by Indira Jaising -2 shall not be implemented.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

E.S. Reddy v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC 258: Cited to reinforce that designation is an honor conferred by the Full Court.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising – I): Examined and partially overruled regarding the point-based assessment system.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising – II): Examined and partially overruled regarding the point-based assessment system.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including:

The need for objectivity and transparency in the designation process.
Concerns about the effectiveness of the point-based assessment system.
The importance of ensuring that only deserving advocates are designated as Senior Advocates.
The need to provide equal opportunities for all members of the Bar, including those from marginalized communities and practicing in Trial Courts
The need to maintain the dignity of the legal profession.

Final Order

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

The practice of making a formal application can be continued.
The directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising – I) as amended by Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising – II) shall not be implemented.
The High Courts should evolve a mechanism by which the members of the Bar practicing in our Trial and District Judiciary and before specialised Tribunals are considered for designation as their role is no inferior to the role played by Advocates practicing before this Court and High Courts.
The High Courts can always call for the views of the Principal District Judges or the Heads of the Tribunals on such applicants.

The Court requested the Chief Justice of India to consider placing the matter before the Full Court for reconsideration of the guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising – I) and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising – II).

Dissenting Opinion

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Related Judgments

Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising – I) – Established the initial guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising – II) – Reconsidered and modified the guidelines established in Indira Jaising – I.
Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Ors (2022) 7 SCC 439 – A contention was raised by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India for reconsideration of this authority.

Significance

The Jitender @ Kalla v. State (2025) case is significant because it prompted the Supreme Court to re-evaluate the existing guidelines for designating Senior Advocates. The Court’s concerns about the objectivity and transparency of the process led to a call for reconsideration of the point-based assessment system and a greater emphasis on ensuring equal opportunities for all members of the Bar. The judgment is likely to result in a more equitable and inclusive designation process, promoting the integrity and excellence of the legal profession in India.

Full Judgment

The full judgment can be accessed here.

Disclaimer

Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the authors for errors or omissions.

Source: Jitender @ Kalla vs. State